The Monday-Morning Pundit

February 29, 2016

For me, it would be a very tedious job to be a sports announcer, especially for the sport of football. After all, there are only so many ways to describe the spectacular catch, the bone-crunching tackle, without repeating oneself. But the biggest problem I see is that the announcer must fill an awful lot of “dead-time,” time when there is no action on the field, or anyplace else. Indeed, the average NFL football game has only 11 minutes of action, snap to whistle. It is one of the things that makes the game the quintessentially American sport: brief periods of intense action separated by planning meetings, a mode of life familiar to every office drone in his cubicle. With so little actual action to talk about, football commentators have a difficult job.

But this is only one of the ways in which the game reflects American life in the 21st century.

This is a game of specialists. Indeed, each team is really two teams that play a different game, and have very little to do with each other. And each position is its own specialty, and it is not easy to switch from one position to another; they even call for different body types. A safety would not feel very safe trying to play a tackle’s position and a linebacker would not be much use as a running back.

All of these specialties lead to a game that is highly managerial. Indeed, there are more managers and coaches by far than there are players, and this is true even if you limit the count to staff devoted directly to the game and the players.

The game is highly legalistic, with a rule book that runs 97 pages; those who would master the game must be both player and lawyer.

The game is extremely violent, and players endanger their health, physical and mental, on every play. And this violence is enabled by technology. This technology is often advertised as “protecting” the players, but the opposite is true: without the complex and highly developed body armor, it would be impossible to hit another human being as hard as they do; the damage would be as great to the hitter as to the hittee. Other contact sports, such as Rugby, have more action but less violence because they are played without armor.

The most peculiarly American feature is that the NFL, like most capitalist corporations, is a highly developed form of socialism. The financially stronger teams subsidize the weaker ones through revenue-sharing of the broadcast income, as well sharing 40% of the gate receipts, and other ways as well. The labor market is strictly controlled through the draft, free-agency rules, and the salary-cap. A strict leveling is enforced to ensure competitive parity. Income redistribution is the foundation of the system.

In exchange for this extensive government support, the league engages in faux patriotism which sheds crocodile tears for Pat Tillman but does not require that commitment to the common good which is the basis of true patriotism.

But as surely as art imitates life, sooner or later life will come to imitate art. And nowhere is this truer than in our political life. It is now treated as a sport, and increasingly as a blood sport. The problem of the political pundit is the same as the problem of the football commentator: trying to fill all the dead time between the brief moments of real action. And in the 24/7 news cycle, this problem becomes acute.

You would think that with the proliferation of non-stop news, we would actually get more news. But the opposite is the case: we get the same bits of news over and over again, an orgy of instant replay that never seems to end. Think of this: when is the last time you heard any serious commentary on government from any of our commentators? Where was the analysis of the tax plans of the Republican candidates, and any examination of whether they would really work? Who has asked whether a “free” university education for all is either possible or desirable? Who has asked the candidates who want to replace Obamacare, “with what, exactly, will you replace it?”

Instead of substantive commentary on the art of governing, we get endless commentary on the game of politics. Who sweated most on the stage? Who has the best ground-game in South Carolina? What is the delegate strategy for this candidate? Has the candidate been knocked off-message? Etc. All of these questions are less substantive than questions like whether a team should make more use of the shotgun formation or clock management after the two-minute warning. With all the time in the world, they have no time to supply real commentary on the world.

We are in full civilizational collapse, and the only solutions proposed are to mount more spectacles at the Coliseum, spectacles which have become our politics. The candidates, most of them, do occasionally make noises about our real problems. They will for example pay lip service to “family values,” while doubling down on systems that grind the family into dust, disburse communities, destroy localities, and undermine the traditions and customs that hold societies together. But they know that they will never be called out on such things. Rather, the commentary will be about how “family values” plays in Peoria, and whether the opposition can counter with an equally vapid platitude.

No candidate has so intuitively grasped this reality of American politics, as has Donald Trump. He knows that he needs no “white papers” because no one will read them, and least of all the people paid to do so. Rather, he only needs to feed the pundits vapid matter for their vapid punditry. He only needs to reflect the collective Id of our declining nation, an Id made more monstrous by the sensation of collapse, a sensation that has been grasped by the majority of the people long before it will be grasped by the punditry. The pundits are isolated; they live in a bubble, but outside that bubble, people face real, if only vaguely intuited, fears. The very vagueness of Trump’s platform perfectly mirrors the vagueness of the general fear. He addresses our general sense of loss in the most general way, lest he finds himself trapped by saying something substantive.

Substance will get you nowhere in the blood sport of politics. Rather, you must give the pundits what they crave, like an addict craves his “fix.” This too, The Donald has grasped, and his twitter-feed feeds their need. His “gaffes” are not flaws of his campaign; they are features. They suck the air-time that might be devoted to other candidates; they even suck out the air-time that might be devoted to his last gaffe. He has mastered social media, and in doing so has mastered the pundits, and us as well.

No one, I think, has grasped the real meaning of this new age of social media than has Pope Francis. In Laudato Si’, he states,

[W]hen media and the digital world become omnipresent, their influence can stop people from learning how to live wisely, to think deeply and to love generously…. True wisdom, as the fruit of self-examination, dialogue and generous encounter between persons, is not acquired by a mere accumulation of data which eventually leads to overload and confusion, a sort of mental pollution. Real relationships with others, with all the challenges they entail, now tend to be replaced by a type of internet communication which enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature…. For this reason, we should be concerned that, alongside the exciting possibilities offered by these media, a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of isolation, can also arise.

It takes real intelligence, I think, and even real wit to be a sports commentator. It requires at least of knowledge of the sport. But no such knowledge, or intelligence, or wit is required from political commentators, and especially not a knowledge of government. This is not to say that there are no commentators with knowledge, intelligence, and wit, but these things are not necessary; the job can be done by someone with the IQ of a houseplant, and frequently is. In such circumstances, we are not likely to recover the true wisdom of “learning how to live wisely, to think deeply and to love generously.” And those that do will be marginalized. They will certainly be unelectable. In the meantime, our politics will more and more resemble our sports, as a game we generally watch but never actually play.

You might also like

8 Comments

Finally! What a breath of fresh air. It is odd how rare it is for people to mention how “the divorce of ethics and economics has crippled economics.” I truly feel any economic system can thrive if it is grounded in ethics, but it seems we take dishonesty for granted, it goes unquestioned, even rewarded. This seems to be the heart of the problem. We need an economic system that rewards the ethical, the compassionate, the generous.

I work in media and am grateful for the Pope Francis quote, I will cherish those words and use them as compass in my work.

It drives me crazy when these poor billionare come crying to cites that they can’t afford the shiny new stadium. And then these cities that are already broke from being fractured by freeways, fall for this scam every time.

Isn’t it odd? The more subsidies the game receives, the higher the ticket prices. There was some excuse for subsidizing stadia when this was a working class entertainment. But now a trip to the game is beyond the reach of most people, even though their taxes pay for it.

John, many thanks for the reply. I am sorry for my long response but I hope what I will say will encourage fellow Catholics to take action in regards to evangelization by focusing economic activity on the dignity of the human person. Thanks to you and the Distributist Review staff; I have learned so much. In regards to this article, I wish to comment further. After reading the article again, I sense something that I think is relevant to what you are saying; that injuries have become a news article, or finally shall I say, something that should concern fans of football. Of course, I have no idea what the majority of the fans how they feel about past players who suffer strokes, brain damage or other physical and mental consequences after they leave the game. Imagine what answers we could get. I do not know, of course, but I would recommend, as a way of ethics if I am right, challenge fans to understand what the consequences of what players deal with after they retire from the sport and its possible to see whether they care or not, they’re just there to watch the game as a means of entertainment.

About the ‘economics’ of the football game, I agree with you, its higher in every way, parking fees, food, peanuts, beer, souvenirs and all other sort of items people sell at the stadiums. Sure, jobs are there, cooks, police officers/security, referees, assistant staff in other various parts of the game and so on. However, the truth is, what really are the cooks, clerks, and those who yell out peanuts and beer for sale being paid to stand in the heat, rain or cold? I feel for those individuals because I don’t think they get paid enough and yet, as you indicate its always higher ticket prices.

Aside from mental and physical consequences that I mention above, you make a good point about Trump and other candidates when they ‘master’ social media. I wish to say this about when I talk with individuals about our candidates. When I have mentioned, as a Catholic what should be addressed not only to our potential and existing candidates for political office, but also to the general public to those I dialogue with, the topics that could be offered as possible resolutions that help influence Catholic social teaching are largely ignored. I am referring to is the area of economics that respects the dignity of the human person, not of profit or job growth. It seems foreign to them. Again, thanks for posting this article. God bless you.

John Médaille

March 1, 2016 at 7:21 PM

The sad thing is, Charles, that the divorce of ethics and economics has crippled economics. All humane sciences depend on a proper consideration of the human person. But by divorcing reducing the human person to a commodity, what is lost is not just the person, but the science. That is, you have a science that doesn’t understand its own subject matter.

John, thank you for publishing this article. It’s a very detailed explanation of the business of football. I used to attend games, simply because they were affordable. But after the last two decades, or three perhaps, they’re just simply not affordable to attend. I wish to include football games from the university and college levels too. It seems that no doubt many take of advantage of ‘capitalizing’ on the game, as you say, its the ‘quintessential’ sport in America. Not to mention all the companies who advertise with products that seem invasive. I had no idea that us taxpayers are also subsidizing the game as well. I also liked the highlighted articles from other websites.

You are absolutely right on the news media, no matter how widespread media outlets are, its just the same jargon. Thanks again for publishing. The media now drives our culture more than ever, especially when many misinterpret what Truth is.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

About Us

The Distributist Review is an online magazine that examines culture, politics, and economics from a distributist perspective. If you have any questions about The Distributist Review, please contact us.